Tipton, Lane G. The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til. Libertyville, IL: Reformed Forum, 2022.
Greg Bahnsen explained Van Til’s apologetic method. John Frame touched on broader theological issues. Lane Tipton gives us something quite new: a whole book on Van Til’s Trinitarian theology. He clears up misunderstandings and explains some of Van Til’s rather unique phrases. Tipton’s thesis is that every error concerning God comes from either having God participate in man or man in God (Tipton 16).
When Van Til uses words like “self-contained God,” he means that “God does not exist in correlation to the universe, with each side of the relation characterized by mutual change” (17). This is excellently put. In other words, he means that God is a se. One minor theme in the book is that creation does not participate in the substance of the Godhead. I agree. I would like to point out, however, that there is an ambiguity here that neither Tipton nor some Thomists seem to be aware of. What does “participation” actually mean? No one really defines it. Even when I finished reading through all of Plato, I had only a vague idea of what the word meant. This means there are two errors to avoid. One is to define participation in such a thick way that one becomes part of the substance of the Godhead. The other is to weaken it where 2 Peter 1:4 is all but meaningless.
Whatever participation means, Van Til posits, not a participation of the divine essence, but a finite replication of it to covenant man (19). This leads to another key point of Tipton’s: Rome’s view of the analogia entis entails theistic mutualism. Theistic mutualism says that God and creation are in a correlative relationship. We will return to that claim later.
Tipton’s chapter on the Triune Creator is a fine presentation of some of God’s attributes. He even suggests how these attributes, some of them anyway, safeguard our understanding of God and the universe. Immutability, for example, precludes any form of pantheism (25). On this point Tipton rightly rebuts John Frame. Frame, by contrast, “advocates for a species of theistic mutualism when he posits two modes of existence in God” (32 n.21; cf John Frame, Doctrine of God, 572).
The heart of this book, maybe surprisingly, is not Van Til on the Trinity, but Van Til on the image of God. Van Til simply expounds the standard Protestant view that man was created in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. Adam was already disposed for communion with God. Rome, by contrast, says something is needed to raise man above his created nature. This means that man’s position is already defective before the fall. Scripture, by contrast, says that any conflict in the being of man is a result of sin (44).
This is where problems arise, all of them self-inflicted for Van Til. I note up front that I do not believe Van Til was a heretic on the Trinity. I know what he was trying to say (see below). Rather, he simply chose the absolute worst way to express his views on the Trinity. Tipton says Van Til is misunderstood on this point. He alludes to Keith Mathison, R. C. Sproul, and John Gerstner. There are two problems with that. One, those men did not really attack Van Til on the Trinity. They attacked him on apologetics and his reading of Reformed sources. Two, it is not clear that they actually misunderstood what he was saying. When someone says the Trinity is both One Person and Three Persons, it is not the critic’s fault that he misunderstands what you are saying.
So what is Van Til saying? He begins well. Tipton notes that the “divine essence has no existence outside of each Trinitarian person” (63). Moreover, the unity in the Trinity is a numeric, not a generic unity. The persons of the Trinity are not members of a genus called “Godhead.” And in one area where I think Van Til did make a valuable advance in Trinitarian theology, he says that each person “exhausts” the divine essence. Whatever it means to be God, a divine person is it. Each person is “interior” to the other persons.
One Person and Three Persons
Following Bavinck, there is “absolute personality” in the Trinity (74; cf Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, God and Creation, 304). This absolute personality entails self-consciousness and self-determination. This absolute personality “opens itself up organically in a threefold existence.” God’s being is a “personal unity” (Tipton 76). It works like this:
Absolute personality → threefold, self-differentiated existence (77)
Now we can proceed to Van Til’s infamous claim. When he says “one person” and “three persons,” what he means is “absolute personal being/personality” and “three persons.” The word person shifts in meaning. At this point he is simply guilty of the fallacy of equivocation, not heresy. Tipton tries to rescue the phrasing, saying “the terms ‘person’ and ‘personality’ [are used interchangeably] to refer to God in his unity” (83). This does not sit right with me. If we front load divine unity with personality, then we muddle the distinction between nature and person. To this Van Til would reply that we cannot, ala Gordon Clark, make the divine essence a “mute” essence. I agree. The older fathers noted that the concept person can already do that. A person is a mode of subsistence. As a mode it modifies the divine essence. It is a mode of existence (tropos hyparxeos). The divine essence is never free-floating in the abstract.
The book ends with a good discussion of perichoresis and autotheos. We will spend some time on the latter term. Autotheos means the Son’s essence exists of himself and not with reference to the Father (112). The Father communicates the person, not the essence to the Son. In fact, “one subsistent person is not sustained in his essence by another Trinitarian person, since all persons subsist equally as the entire underived essence of God” (117).
Van Til ties all of this together with the idea of “mutual representation.” Tipton explains that “each person represents the whole of the divine essence (in the relations of subsistence) and the other Trinitarian persons (in the relations of coinherence” in the Godhead” (132). In fact, mutual exhaustion correlates with mutual representation (133).
Is Thomas Aquinas a theistic mutualist? He might be. Tipton, like Van Til, does not engage in actual analysis with primary sources. To be sure, he references learned works by Thomists on this topic, but we still do not know what Thomas actually said. There are problems with Thomas’s account in places, and I agree with Tipton on the donum. I admit that some Thomists do indeed speak of a sharing (or at least, seeing) the essence of God. If Thomas said something like that, we would need to see where and to see what he means by it. We see neither. Thomas probably held to the chain of being ontology, but did he mean that there is just one being and God has more of it than we do? That seems more of a criticism of Scotus. My own reading of Thomas, no doubt largely shaped by men like Norman Geisler and Mortimer Adler, suggests something like the following: God and man have being analogically, not univocally. We can say our concepts of being are univocal, but our judgments of it are analogical.
Following Norman Geisler, I would say that unless we have something like an analogy of being, we will not be able to escape Parmenides’s challenge. Parmenides said if we think being is univocal, then all being is one. If we say it is equivocal, then we would differ from other objects and God by not-being, or nothing. In which case, being is still one. The solution, then, is that we have our being analogically of God.
That’s not crucial to this review, though. What is crucial is that we are still not sure of what Thomas said. I can even grant Tipton’s claim for the sake of argument, but we would at least need to see it.
Notwithstanding the above criticism, the book is excellent. Tipton has done what Van Tillians normally do not do: he explains some of Van Til’s unique phrases. I do wish he would tell us what “concrete universal” meant for Van Til. I do not think anyone should criticize Van Til on the Trinity without at least reading that section in this book. It may not necessarily convince you, but you will at least have seen what Van Til does and does not mean.
(Disclaimer: I was given a complimentary copy by the publisher. I was under no obligation for a favorable review. My thoughts are entirely my own.)